INTERVIEW

“If we are the ‘best of the communities’, the Khair ul-Ummah, as we often refer to Muslims as, we should take the initiative in promoting inter-community dialogue and not wait for others to do it…”
Professor Akhtarul Wasey

Professor Akhtarul Wasey is the head of the Department of Islamic Studies at the Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. He also edits the journals, Islam and the Modern Age (English) and Islam Aur Asr-e Jadid (Urdu). In this interview with Yoginder Sikand, he reflects on various aspects of madrasa education in contemporary India.

Q: How do you look at the vilification of madrasas as ‘dens of terror’?

A: I think the anti-madrasa campaign is a carefully orchestrated exercise on the part of influential sections of the media, in which sections of the state apparatus and intelligence agencies that provide false reports are also closely involved. And at the global level, one has to understand this in the context of the offensives of the neo-imperialist forces. Undoubtedly, we do have some unwanted elements, but the media has created a mountain of a molehill. But we must, at the same time, also recognise that the molehill does actually exist, instead of seeking to deny it. However, that molehill is certainly not the madrasas. The former Indian Prime Minister I.K.Gujral, and the present Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, have acknowledged that Indian madrasas have nothing to do with terrorism. Even the senior BJP leader L.K.Advani, while serving as India’s Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, went on record as saying that his government had not been able to identify any madrasa in the country serving as a training ground for terrorists.

Q: What about the role of certain state governments in harassing young Muslims, including madrasa teachers and students, and arresting them on charges of terrorism, which have generally later proven to be false?

A: The worst state governments in this regard, I feel, are the Congress governments in states like Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra, where numerous such cases have occurred. Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra are becoming hunting grounds for Muslim youth and even states like Gujarat. The National Human Rights Commission must enquire as to how many Muslim youth have been arrested on charges of terrorism, how many have been then charged, and how many have then been freed because the charges against them have been trumped-up. The number of such fake cases is now enormous. These innocent youth must be compensated and the Government of India must apologise for demeaning an entire community in this way.

Q: How do you look at on-going debates about madrasa curricular reform?

A: These debates, and most of the issues that form part of the debates, are not new. They are more than a century-old. And today we are talking about many of the same questions! This itself shows that the pace of reform has been slow. This has to do with many issues, a major one being a certain reluctance on the part of many madrasa managers and teachers to come up to new standards of excellence, to learn new ways of teaching and new subjects, fearing that if the importance of all these is conceded, others might take over. Many of them are scared of reform and think that this might dilute the particular identity that they have come to assume. So, while many fancy buildings are being constructed by many madrasas across the country, fundamental questions as to curricular reform are still not getting the importance they deserve.

Q: What role do you see the ulema as playing with regard tointer-community dialogue in India today?

A: Dialogue must move beyond discussions about religious beliefs and practices, to centre on issues of common concern that afflict us all, questions such as poverty, social injustice, the ecological crisis, war and peace and so on. Our own religious approach to people of other faiths should be as the Quran lays down—that each of us is entitled to follow our own religion and that there can be no compulsion in religious affairs. This is not because we are a minority in India or because of local compulsions, but precisely because Islam mandates this approach for us. The ulema must take the leadership to promote genuine inter-community dialogue and harmony. In this regard, a classic instance is that of Maulana Azad. His commentary on the opening verse of the Quran, the Surah al-Fatiha, can well be considered a manifesto for inter-faith understanding. If we are the ‘’best of the communities’, the Khair ul-Ummah, as we often refer to Muslims as, we should take the initiative in promoting inter-community dialogue and not wait for others to do it. It is our Quranic mandate to work for solving the manifold problems that not just Muslims alone, but the whole of humanity is faced with. Of course we cannot do this alone, and we need an inter-faith alliance with a common minimum programme. In this respect, as in every other, we have a guide in the Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh). Even before he declared his Prophethood, he was associated with a group of fellow Meccans, all of them non-Muslims, in the form of the Hilful Fudhool, which provided help and succour to the distressed. Later, when in Madinah, at a time when he and his followers were faced with relentless threats from the Meccans, he announced that if the Meccans invited him to join an alliance like the Hilful Fudhool he would do so.

So, if the Prophet could be willing to enter into an alliance with those opposed to Islam for the sake of human welfare, why should not we enter into similar alliances with people of other faiths, particularly those who are well-meaning and are in no way inimical to us and our religion? Honestly, I don’t see Muslims getting anyway ahead unless they take up this task seriously and in a major way.